On Mar 1, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Clark Morris wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 11:31:12 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Mar 1, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Rick Fochtman wrote:
-----------------------<snip>---------------------
A friend made a very good point that many sysprogs lost their jobs
in OZ due to outsourcing; like one company had 8 SP, then
outsourced, & eventually ended up with 2 SP supporting a few sites.
Has this also been a factor in US?
-----------------------<unsnip>-------------------
It's a factor, but I'm not sure how great a factor.
------------SNIP------------------------------------
The one place I was familiar with(7+ years ago). I heard they have
outsourced to India. Supposedly all their systems staff is being let
go and will be supported out of India. It is too early in the process
to know if it will work or not, IMO. My gut instinct is that it will
not work but I am not in any real position to know. I suspect that
the positions here will be around (although numbers will be smaller)
for some time. What I am really curious about when it falls flat on
its face.
Ed
Outsourcing means giving up some control. The legal implications and
responsibilities when something goes wrong should be the subject of
careful negotiation. When the entities are in two different states
(United State of America, India or Germany for example) or provinces
(Canada for example), the legal issues become somewhat more complex.
When the entities are in two different countries, the complications
escalate. The Patriot Act in the United States has some Canadians
worried about privacy violations (probably correctly) and this concern
led to people opposing the outsourcing of some government processing
(health care) in British Columbia to a US based company. Outsourcing
within the North American Free Trade Act area or within the European
Union is probably less risky than between the two entities. My rule
of thumb would be "don't outsource to a jurisdiction where the company
doing the outsourcing doesn't have a strong physical presence". The
strong physical presence gives greater assurance that the company
knows local laws and customs (greater, not absolute).
The thing that has baffled me about outsourcing is how do companies
actually save money since now the outsourcer includes in its costs
marketing expenses and profits.
--------SNIP-------------------
This as a multinational company HQ in Europe. From a second hand
source (pretty reliable) The HQ wanted to cut costs so the Chicago
"division" was selected to get outsourced. From what little I heard
HQ is still spending $'s like a drunken sailor. In plain simple
english the US was the division that got screwed . There was some
internal politics (of course) and the Chicago division got the axe. I
did hear that the option was there to be outsourced to a consulting
company (name withheld) and also IBM had their hand in the pot. India
got it .
I doubt if anyone will be able to come forth and give the full story
without some fear of retribution.
If it will save $$ only the company will be able to answer that.
With the amount of fiber (electronic communications) that are(is?)
needed I am surprised that they will not need a whole bunch of fiber
to be created.
Last I heard there was some legal requirement to mirror one
application that amounted to 100+ volumes. I don't know if there was
also some kind of requirement for this to be in the US or not. In
fact the whole issue of DR will be interesting, IMO now that they are
being relocated to INDIA.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
